Permanent pacemaker dependency in patients with new left bundle branch block and new first degree atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Conduction disorders with need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain frequent complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Up to 22% of PPM after TAVI are implanted for new onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) and atrioventricular block (AVB) I. However, clinical benefit and predictors of ventricular pacing in TAVI patients receiving PPM for this indication remain unclear. We retrospectively evaluated pacemaker interrogation data of patients who received a PPM post TAVI for new LBBB and new AVB I. The primary endpoint of this study was relevant ventricular pacing (ventricular pacing rate: Vp ≥ 1%) at the first outpatient pacemaker interrogation. Secondary endpoints were predictors for relevant ventricular pacing. At the first pacemaker interrogation (median follow up at 6.23 2.8-14.8 months), median ventricular pacing frequency was 1.0{\%} 0.1-17.8. Out of 61 patients, 36 (59{\%}) had Vp rates ≥ 1{\%}. Patients with frequent ventricular pacing showed longer QRS duration (155~ms ± 17~ms vs. 144~ms ± 18~ms, p = 0.018) at the time of PPM implantation and were less likely treated with a balloon-expandable Edwards Sapiens Valve (39{\%} vs. 12{\%}, p = 0.040). Our findings suggest that the majority of patients with new LBBB and new AVB I after TAVI show relevant ventricular pacing rates at follow up. Further prospective studies are necessary to identify patients at higher risk of pacemaker dependency

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS)/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) expert consensus on risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias: use the right tool for the right outcome, in the right population.

In clinical practice and for scientific purposes, cardiologists and primary care physicians perform risk assessment in patients with cardiac diseases or conditions with high risk of developing such. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) set down this expert consensus statement task force to summarize the consensus regarding risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias. Objectives were to raise awareness of using the right risk assessment tool for a given outcome in a given population, and to provide physicians with practical proposals that may lead to rational and evidence-based risk assessment and improvement of patient care in this regard. A large variety of methods are used for risk assessment and choosing the best methods and tools hereof in a given situation is not simple. Even though parameters and test results found associated with increased risk of one outcome (e.g. death) may also be associated with higher risk of other adverse outcomes, specific risk assessment strategies should be used only for the purposes for which they are validated. The work of this task force is summarized in a row of consensus statement tables

Impairment of Quality of Life in Patients with Implanted Subcutaneous Cardioverter Defibrillator (S-ICD) Compared to Implanted Transvenous Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy

Background: The subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been shown to be a viable alternative to transvenous ICDs (TV-ICD) in all patients at risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) but without pacing indication.Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of therapy with current S-ICD devices on quality of life (QoL) in comparison to patients with TV-ICD devices.Methods: In our single-centre study, 52 consecutive patients with S-ICD and 52 matched patients with TV-ICD were analysed. QoL has been assessed by a standardized questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L, modified). Additionally, clinical baseline and follow-up data were evaluated.Results: Two-thirds of the total study population reported restrictions in daily routine compared to their life before ICD implantation. A total of 27.7% of S-ICD patients stated to expect an improvement of QoL by deactivation or explantation of their defibrillator compared to only 6.4% of patients with TV-ICD (p=0.006), which was mainly caused by discomfort and pain from the S-ICD pocket (relevant discomfort and pain in 32.6% vs 11.5%;p<0.01).Limitations: Main limitation of the study is that quality of life was assessed for one single time point only and time since implantation differed significantly between S-ICD and TV-ICD. Furthermore our collective is younger, and, due to the high proportion of patients without cardiomyopathy, the mean EF is better than usual ICD collective. The absence of heart failure in about the half of our patients might have relevant impact on our QoL analysis. Conclusion: A relevant proportion of S-ICD patients expects an improvement of QoL by explantation of the device. Of note, this impression was not driven by the fear of receiving shocks but mainly by discomfort and pain caused by the pulse generator

Impairment of Quality of Life among Patients with Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy (LifeVest®): A Preliminary Study

Background. Wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) therapy is feasible and safe in patients as a transient protection against sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, the impact of WCD therapy on quality of life (QoL) has not been studied. Methods. In our single-centre study, 109 consecutive patients with a prescription of WCD were retrospectively analysed. Quality of life has been assessed by a standardized questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L, modified). Additionally, clinical baseline and follow-up data and recorded arrhythmic episodes were evaluated. Results. Mean WCD therapy time was 56.2 (± 42.4) days, with a daily wear time of 19.7 (± 5) hours. A total of 3441 arrhythmia episodes were detected. Of these, 27 (1%) were adequate but did not require shock therapy. Likewise, no inadequate shock therapy occurred. WCD therapy negatively affected quality of life: 43% of patients reported mental health issues. 37% reported pain or discomfort. Self-care, usual activities, and mobility were restricted in 17%, 48%, and 36%, respectively. 29% were afraid of receiving shock therapy, and 48% suffered from sleep disturbance. However, 64% indicated having felt safe during WCD therapy. Accordingly, average quality of life was rated 70/100 points. Conclusion. In our cohort, no SCD was prevented by WCD therapy. In contrast, in this preliminary study quality of life was reduced. Thus, careful recommendation of WCD therapy for high risk patients should be considered

Benefit of Contact Force Sensing Catheter Technology for Successful Left Atrial Anterior Line Formation: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Introduction. The value of contact force information for ablation of LA anterior line is unknown. In a prospective randomized clinical trial, we investigated if information on contact force during left atrial (LA) anterior line ablation reduces total radiofrequency time and results in higher rates of bidirectional line block in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus substrate modification. Methods. We included patients with indication for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and additional substrate modification. For LA anterior line ablation, patients were randomized to contact force information visible (n=35) or blinded (n=37). Patients received contrast enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) before and 3-6 months after ablation to visualize the LA anterior line. Primary endpoint was radiofrequency time to achieve bidirectional line block. Secondary endpoints were completeness of the LA anterior line on cMRI, distribution of contact force, procedural data, adverse events, and 12 months success rate. Results. In 72 patients (64±9 years, 68% male), bidirectional LA anterior line block was achieved in 70 (97%) patients. Radiofrequency time to bidirectional block did not differ significantly across groups (contact force information visible 23±18min versus contact force information blinded 21±15min, p=0.50). The LA anterior line was discernable on cMRI in 40 patients (82%) without significant differences across randomization groups (p=0.46). No difference in applied contact force was found depending on cMRI line visibility. Twelve-month success and adverse event rates were comparable across groups. Conclusion. Information on contact force does not significantly improve the ablation of LA anterior lines. Clinical Trial Registration. The trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov by identifier: NCT02217657